Standing Committee F

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 51 - Transitional arrangements

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 45, in 
clause 51, page 19, line 33, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'—[Mr. Barker.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 355, in
clause 51, page 19, line 39, at end insert 
 ', or on the expiry of a period of 12 months starting on the date the application was received by the registrar, whichever is the sooner.'.

Rob Marris: I was about to speak about animal welfare, but will give way.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so unexpectedly.
 The purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is to limit the period during which an applicant may continue to hunt, and he alluded earlier to the example of a publican being liable for rates pending an application's being granted. This morning, I suggested that that was a bad example, because it does not involve the animal welfare aspect, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) referred earlier. It is not just a question of closing down a pub and continuing to pay the rates. It is a question of closing down a hunt, laying off staff and, unfortunately, destroying hounds. Hunt supporters may have to deal similarly with some of their horses. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked animal welfare.

Rob Marris: I do not accept that. My example referred not to rates but to overheads. The overheads of a public house include staff costs, and a publican might have to decide whether to lay off staff. The hon. Gentleman referred to a similar point concerning the staff employed by a hunt, whether it was the late great Captain Ronnie—whoever he was—or anyone else. A hunt would have to make a commercial decision if the long-stop 12-month period that I want to introduce were to run out. The animal welfare aspect is that those who own the hounds would have to decide whether they thought that they would receive registration 12 months hence—that is, 14 months on—in which case they would carry on feeding the hounds.

Hugo Swire: There is no similarity between pub staff and hunt staff. Hunt staff must be qualified and highly trained in what they do. They are employed largely in rural areas where there are no replacement jobs. If hunt staff lose their jobs, hunts cannot go down to the
 local job centre to replace them if the hunts are granted a licence at some future date. They will cease to exist.

Rob Marris: I am sorry to hear that the death penalty exists in rural areas. Those staff will not cease to exist, but they may cease to make themselves available for that line of work. That is something that any employer faces if there is a shutdown or redundancies. When the market changes, the staff may not be around. The hon. Gentleman undercut his argument by talking about skilled staff. Some pub staff are skilled and may get another job in another pub, but the expectation is that there may not be many hunts around with which hunt staff might find another job.

Gregory Barker: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the circumstances in which a pub or any other legal activity would arbitrarily have its licence to practice, operate or open withdrawn for no other reason than a change in legislation, and with no compensation in the full expectation that they would be able to carry on afterwards?

Rob Marris: Of course I can—that would be so if food hygiene regulations change, for example.

Gregory Barker: A pub would be forced to close down?

Rob Marris: Yes. A pub might have to close down while it went through the process of compliance. Would the people get any compensation? No.
 I am anxious to make some progress this afternoon, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister and Opposition Members—and you, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman talked grandiosely about this being a matter of judging people and doing away with the presumption that someone is innocent until found guilty. That is not the case. Both the Bill and the long-stop provision that I seek to introduce would mean that someone could not carry on hunting beyond that 12-month period without registration. In a scenario such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, registration would not have come through and the offence would be hunting without being registered. People would not simply be adjudged guilty; they would have decided whether they were going to engage in that human and physical activity. 
 It is interesting that when the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke to amendment No. 45 he mentioned the need for further research, which was set out in the Burns report, and he said that that would be unfair. The Burns report was published in June 2000, nearly three years ago. The Bill was printed nearly four months ago, and those individuals who expect their activities to be subject to registration may be having research done now. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman talked about the fact that one needs time to do such research, especially because of how the cruelty was framed. When he spoke about my amendment, he said that the Bill assumes that hunting is cruel when we know it is not. Either he has the research or he has not; either he knows whether it is or he does not. We are talking about something akin to the transitional period. If prospective applicants need time to engage in research, they could start now. They could also do that during the 15-month period that my amendment 
 would introduce. They would have the three months that are built in to the Bill, plus an additional 12-month long stop.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that I, like many hundreds of thousands of people in the country, sincerely hold the view that hunting is not cruel? We believe that at the core of our being, just as I am sure that many Government Members believe that hunting is cruel. That is not, however, the same thing as saying that it is clinically proven by veterinaries and by scientific facts that will hold up as evidence before a tribunal or in court. The two positions are quite different.

Rob Marris: With the greatest respect, I must say that if that is the case, when the hon. Gentleman made his statement, he should not have used the word ''know''. He should have referred to something in which he strongly believed to the core of his being, or words similar to those he just used. The difficulty arose with the word ''know''.
 On the changed cruelty test in 8(2) and the associated difficulties, to which the hon. Gentleman referred when we discussed his amendment, I shall remind him, as I did this morning, that the change to the Bill was agreed and reported in fewer than two columns of Hansard, and there was no Division. I assumed, therefore, that there was general agreement on that matter. He now tells me that there was not, and I understand that. However, at the time I thought that there was. Two columns of Hansard with no division is a pretty short debate. 
 Under clause 15, applications will be handled under regulations made by the Secretary of State. In the nature of things, and this Bill is no exception, dummy regulations are not put forward. That would be a desirable way to proceed under any Bill, because then hon. Members who sit on Standing Committees would have some idea of the kind of regulations that might be made. Dummy regulations were put forward on the Export Control Bill—I sat on the Standing Committee that discussed it last year. I am trying to tease out from the Minister what the Department expects it will do regarding its internal organisation and in terms of regulations that are to be published in pursuance of clause 15. What regulations will there be to ensure that applications are dealt with speedily and fairly? That is what my amendment is about: it is intended to increase the pressure on the Department to get things through quickly—that point has been raised, and it is a fair one. What do we know about the handling? How quickly will certain things go through? 
 Opposition Members have suggested that my amendment would be a little unfair to people, and there is some strength in that argument. However, I require reassurance from the Minister that we will not need a long-stop 12 months—as my amendment proposes—because the Department will deal with and get to the final determination, which is defined in clause 45(5), within the 12-month period that I suggest. 
 The Minister may say that my approach to the matter is an unsuitable way to get things moving 
 quickly and to ensure that we do not have endless uncertainty and the sort of thing that it has been suggested is going on under the Act passed in Scotland, where de facto hunting is taking place. In our case, de jure hunting would be going on because if people were to apply for registration within the first three months, they would be able to continue their hunting activities until final determination—pursuant to clause 45—of their application. For clarity and fairness, I want the process speeded up.

Lembit Öpik: I wish to make some comments about the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
 That hunting applicants might go out and obtain evidence to prove that hunting is not cruel is a surprising expectation. In some parts of Britain, such as the area that I represent, farmers have an average annual income of about £4,000 or £5,000. That does not enable them to make a huge investment in research. If farmers wanted to be researchers they would work for MORI or another organisation that conducts polling research, or they would be vets. It is plainly unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to imply that there is an onus of responsibility on farmers to conduct such research. We discussed that when we addressed earlier amendments, and there was resistance to providing substantial funding to help those individuals put together their cases. 
 I note—somewhat wistfully—that there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that people feel that hunting is not cruel. Two out of three vets are opposed to a ban on hunting. However, we will digress from the amendment if we go further down that track. It is unreasonable of the hon. Gentleman to say in defence of his proposal that research is a viable option for the great majority of people who hunt. 
 The hon. Gentleman is impatient to ensure that there is not an open-ended opportunity to carry on hunting de jure—if that is the right legal term—because of potential hold-ups in the system. I spoke to him after the previous sitting, so he knows that I think that if that is his intention, he is attempting to realise it in the wrong way. He would punish the people who want to go hunting and make applications, whereas he should be attempting enforcement by putting limitations on the registrar—on how long they are allowed to process an application. How can it be fair that a farmer is no longer allowed to go hunting because the time has run out after 12 months because of the limitations of the application system? That is not natural justice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. 
 That point underlines the frustration that many Opposition Committee members feel. We will discuss compensation when we address a later amendment but the hon. Gentleman's amendment does not suggest that farmers should be compensated for a period during which they cannot hunt while their application is being processed. It is patently obvious to those of us who accept that pest control is one of the most important reasons for hunting that there should be a compensation scheme because lambs will be killed. In order to look at the utilitarian benefit of hunting, one needs to consider the net impact on, for example, 
 lambs of preventing hunting from taking place. Therefore, once again, preventing people from hunting with dogs while they are waiting for their application to be processed has a negative animal welfare implication in areas such as upland Wales where hunting is the key means of pest control. I think that the Minister is familiar with such points, but on the assumption that he will not be sympathetic with amendment No. 355—I hope that he is not—I ask the hon. Gentleman, whose intentions I understand, to consider the injustice that would be facilitated by his amendment.

Edward Garnier: I want to pick up on the last point. In some sense, it does not matter what the Minister thinks or where his sympathies lie because we do not know the pre-arranged choreography in relation to the amendment. If it were pressed to a Division, the right hon. Gentleman might say that he does not support it. I do not imagine, however, that he has control over the voting intentions of those hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him because the Bill is a free-vote issue.
 We have seen the action taken in connection with other amendments. The Minister expresses either no view or one of neutrality. He has even been mildly disapproving of an amendment tabled by one of his hon. Friends. He does not vote, but, none the less, the amendment is accepted. We should not place too much confidence in the views of individual hon. Members, in the absence of knowledge about what they have been saying in advance of our discussions. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that it is necessary to flag up the likelihood of administrative log jams in the registration system. That is not a new idea that we have thought of for this afternoon's discussions. It is been aired fully on earlier occasions. I remember criticising the Minister and those who helped him draft the Bill for assuming that, for example, the single registrar will be able to deal with a huge number of applications, which there will be soon after the Bill's enactment. 
 The Minister was unable to tell us about the cost, but I anticipate that there will be plenty of applications. Although they will be paper exercises and not oral hearings in front of the registrar, albeit that he is the master of his own proceedings, the process will take a long time. With the best will in the world, if only one person is to deal with such matters, although he may be supported by a secretariat, it will take a long time for the various applications for registration to be processed. 
 If particular applicants are concerned that the registrar and his secretariat are not dealing with the applications and the log jam is affecting adversely the rights of a particular group of people or an individual applicant, people may consider approaching the High Court to obtain what used to be called an order of mandemus, which tells the registrar to get on with his job. I forget what such orders are called now. I hope that such a process does not take place, because it would add into the equation further delay and additional cost. The more that people poke at 
 something, the more difficult it is often to make it react in a sensible and positive way. We can expect a likely administrative log jam. 
 I disagree with the remedy of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which is to cut off at 12 months the ability of those who have applied to register to hunt. I have a suspicion—nothing that I can base on evidence—that there will come a time when the registrar will be out of a job. The general theory behind the Bill is not, of course, to provide a licensed hunting regime, but to do away with hunting altogether. By the time that the registrar has had his tail tweaked a few times by the Government's financially supported animal welfare organisations and has been taken to the tribunals on numerous occasions—possibly to the High Court on a point of law—a body of decisions will grow up that will make it clear that lowland hunting will never be licensed, because it will not pass the amended utility test. That is not what I want, but it is what I expect. On that ground alone, the registrar will never have to make a decision on least suffering, because he will be persuaded, thanks to the way in which the Bill is constructed, that hunting is of no utility in pest control. Therefore, the time will come when the registrar is out of a job and the problem that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I have anticipated will disappear by itself. This is a short-term problem that the Government are prepared to live with because they know that, before long, the whole thing will go away and the true intent of the Bill—to ban hunting—will be evident. 
 That is a nasty game. I did not come into Parliament expecting fairness. I certainly did not come into Parliament expecting fairness from my political opponents, but that is just another example of the unfairness of the Bill. ''If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined up'' is the old expression. This is not a joke, I have joined up and I intend to make it as clear as I can to the outside world that I disapprove of the manner in which the Bill has been constructed, I disapprove of the policy behind it and, even more importantly, I disapprove of the underhand, hidden agenda behind it. Much as I personally respect the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am concerned that his amendment would merely reinforce the objectionable nature of the Bill as a whole. 
 Having got that off my chest, I want to deal with one or two practical problems that arise from his amendment. If it becomes part of the Bill and part of an Act, it will negate the appeal system. There would be no point in having an appeal system if a decision were taken out of the hands of the registrar, tribunal or High Court by the 12-month cut-off period. People might be told, ''You can hunt up to the 12 months while your application to register is going through the system. Come the end of the 12th month, you must stop, because you will not be doing a legal activity, but your right to hunt can be revived, once the tribunal or the High Court, if the matter reaches the High Court, has ruled in your favour or against the objections of the Government-funded prescribed animal welfare organisation.'' It is impractical to think that an organisation such as a hunt can run itself on the 
 basis that it must shut down for an unspecified time, while the registration system, the tribunal system and the High Court get round to dealing with the application. 
 That is not something that will bite back on those who have applied, because not only those who have applied for a licence have the right of appeal. We can see from the Bill that respondents—the Government-funded animal welfare groups—have a right to appeal against the registrar and, on a point of law, against the tribunal. Therefore, ill-motivated and malicious, but nevertheless Government-funded, animal welfare organisations could appeal, to make sure that the applicant's case is cut off by the 12-month guillotine under the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I can see that tactic being used. 
 The amendment would also negate the appeal system by discouraging from appealing those who have applied but who have been unfavourably dealt with by the registrar. They will know that if the registrar cannot deal with their application before the end of the 12 months, that is it. Even if they are one of the few lucky ones, and their application is dealt with in the 12 months, they will know that the application to the tribunal may take them beyond that period. They will then have to decide whether, in real terms, it will be worth going to the tribunal to exercise their right of appeal. 
 I urge the Committee to consider another practical question. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is allowed to become part of the Bill, would it not only negate the appeal system but undermine the statement endorsed in the Bill by the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998? I often think that the Government did not really understand what they were doing when they invited the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass the 1998 Act, and the Home Secretary's comments during the past few days—in fact, more or less ever since he took office after the last general election—confirm that. I seem to remember warning Parliament at the time that that Act would create several constitutional collision points that the Government might live to regret. Every time the Home Secretary opens his mouth to criticise a judge for making a decision under the law that the Government made, I am persuaded to pat myself on the back. That does not do the great scheme of things any good, however, because the Government just get crosser and the judiciary is held up to further opprobrium by Ministers such as the Home Secretary. 
 The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is inviting us to create what I would describe as a wholly disproportionate answer to a problem that should, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out, be dealt with through administrative mechanisms, not the imposition of a penalty. The 12-month limit amounts to a penalty.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be the most extraordinary indication of where the Minister's prejudices lie if he were to give any support to amendment No. 355, whether positive or passive? It would reflect on the drafting of the Minister's Bill, the entire basis of which is the tribunal and registrar. If he were seen to support the
 amendment, it would shoot a hole through this core part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I long ago gave up trying to work out what goes through the heads of other Members of Parliament, let alone of Ministers, when they speak to particular provisions or pieces of legislation. I know what my hon. Friend means, but I shall let him make his own remarks in his own way. That is not to say that I necessarily disagree, but I want to concentrate on the difficulties that amendment No. 355 would promote.
 As I have said, my concerns are practical. I cannot think that the Minister would want to embarrass the Secretary of State, any more than the hon. Gentleman would, by allowing a piece of legislation to be amended to conflict with her no-doubt well considered statement under section 19 of the 1998 Act. 
 I suspect that the 12-month cut-off would not only destroy the appeal system from both angles—from the points of view of the applicant and the respondent—but deny human rights under the European convention. If only for those two reasons, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might want to consider the good sense of his amendment. I know that he is a man of great wisdom and of commendably few words. I am sure that it will not take much to provoke him into saying that he would like to withdraw the amendment.

Alun Michael: I will not follow all the scents that have been laid down during the course of this short debate. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke as if on Second Reading, and followed with a Back Bencher's Queen's Speech response. Had you not kept your eagle eye on him and allowed him to continue, I might have suspected him not to be in order, Mr. Stevenson.
 The hon. Gentleman galloped around a number of the courses that we have covered in early debates, and his high-flown language was inappropriate. Some points need to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman referred to people's need to be able to undertake research. There is nothing to prevent hunters, or the opponents of hunting, from initiating research in advance of the period referred to in the Bill if they feel that pieces of evidence would aid their application or assist in challenging applications. 
 Equally, those people can begin to prepare their applications now. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that people would be found guilty before they had had an opportunity to be heard. Nobody is deemed to be guilty by the Bill; people have to break the law to be guilty. I hope that we will not see law-breaking once this Bill becomes law, because it will be clear what people are or are not able to do. They will be able to explore any grey areas by making an application; they will either succeed in demonstrating that the activity that they propose is not cruel because it satisfies both the utility test and the least suffering test, or they will fail, in which case I am sure that they will accept the judgment. 
 The basic principle is that a setting of a dog or dogs on other mammals should only be allowed if it is not cruel. I remind hon. Members again of the statement made by the Countryside Alliance: 
''If it's cruel we shouldn't be doing it.''
 If hunting is a means of achieving necessary pest control that involves less suffering than the alternative, people will be able to demonstrate that. That seems entirely fair. 
 The hon. Gentleman said that hunting is not cruel. The opportunity exists to prove both the utility and the least suffering conditions, and if those cannot be satisfied, by definition the outcome would be cruel.

Peter Luff: How can the terrier men prove their activity is not cruel?

Alun Michael: I am not dealing with terrier men and those activities that have been tested—

Peter Luff: It has not been tested.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misses the point yet again. There are activities that clearly involve cruelty. Hare coursing is the obvious example—this activity cannot pass the test of utility under the definition used by its adherents. If the hon. Gentleman has not understood that by this stage, I am deeply disappointed.
 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is wrong to suggest that I have been unclear in my responses to each amendment or new clause. I agree that the testing of evidence will lead to clarity. Applicants will have the opportunity to make their case, and to appeal if their case is turned down. The tribunal will consider the evidence. That is a fair way of making it clear which activities can satisfy the two tests and which are therefore not cruel and can continue. Clarity will emerge after a period of time. 
 The transitional arrangements proposed in the Bill are fair. They allow existing hunts and hunters to continue to hunt, albeit subject to conditions that protect animal welfare. From the point when the Bill is enacted, they are required to do that in a way that is not cruel. That is a change in the situation that applies in advance. As long as they undertake their activities in a way that keeps all suffering to a minimum, they will be able to continue until their applications have been decided. 
 Those who support the Bill want an end to cruel activity such as hare coursing and want that to happen as quickly as possible. I will come in a moment to points made my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We have to be fair and expeditious in applying new legislation. In providing for those transitional arrangements, the Bill recognises that it will inevitably take some time before decisions on the first wave of applications can be made. It may be that that period will be shorter rather than longer, and I share my hon. Friend's hope that it will be shorter rather longer. 
 Making that arrangement avoids any injustice that might arise from stopping people carrying on an activity before it has been possible for them to put forward their case to test whether the activity meets the two tests of utility and least suffering. For an initial period at the beginning of the introduction of the new registration system, the Bill will permit hunting to continue until the application is finally determined, 
 provided that an application has been made for registration and that the hunting is carried out in accordance with the automatic conditions of registration and any conditions specified in the application. 
 The Bill currently provides for a window of two months; that is from one month after it is passed to the point at which it comes into force three months later. All applications will benefit from those transitional arrangements. Existing hunters have had plenty of notice that the registration scheme is due to be introduced and that the necessary forms and regulations governing applications for registration will have been prepared in the month after the Bill is passed, which will allow applications to be made in that two-month window. I ask both Government and Opposition Members to accept that a period of less than two months might be unduly short and that a longer period is unnecessary. The two-month window will give people an opportunity. 
 ''Finally determined'' is defined in clause 45(5), which provides that an application is finally determined when the registrar has determined it and an appeal to the tribunal has been determined or can no longer be brought. That is designed to prevent hunting from being carried on for years outside the registration system while endless appeals are made against the decisions of the registrar and the tribunal. 
 The registration system is also designed to ensure that there is a fair opportunity for people to have their cases heard. Applications made more than three months after the Bill is passed will not benefit from the transitional arrangements. The hunting that is the subject of those applications will not be permitted unless and until the registrar grants the necessary registration. Extending the period during which applications may be made under the transitional arrangements to 12 months after the Bill is passed would enable hunting to continue outside the registration scheme for much longer than the Bill currently permits. It would also introduce a degree of uncertainty because people could leave their applications. It is sensible to know the extent of the applications that will have to be dealt with and the administrative burden that has to be assumed. 
 I consider that three months is a perfectly reasonable period for existing hunts and hunters to prepare and to submit applications.

Gregory Barker: At what point will the hunting public be able to see the forms and applications that they will have to fill in?

Alun Michael: The forms will certainly be available after Royal Assent and well in advance of the date for the start of applications. There will be two months during which the hunting public can make their applications. The Bill makes it clear what they will have to do in order to make a successful application to show that they can meet the two tests It is far from ridiculous to ask people to demonstrate that they can meet two sensible tests.
 I should point out to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who grumbles and mumbles on the Back Bench—it is nice to see that he has turned up—

Adrian Flook: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I was here at half-past 2.

Marion Roe: That is not a point of order.
Alun Michael rose—

Adrian Flook: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. From a sedentary position the Minister said that I was not here this morning; I was here from five minutes to 9 until 25 past 11.

Marion Roe: That is still not a point of order.
Alun Michael rose—

Edward Garnier: I do not want to put ideas into the Minister's head, but will applicants have to pay a fee for the application or will it be free? If he does not know, the answer must be no.

Alun Michael: While I collect my thoughts, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point. There will be a registration fee, but it will certainly not be onerous; it will be a small fee to cover the cost of registration.

Hugo Swire: The prescribed bodies—whoever they are—will receive Government funding to challenge any registration. Will they also have to pay a fee to register their objection?

Marion Roe: Order. I remind the Minister of the subject under debate. We cannot revisit matters already debated.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mrs. Roe. I simply direct Opposition Members' attention to clause 13, which sets out the way in which an application has to be made. It must be in the ''prescribed form'', contain the ''prescribed information'', and
''be accompanied by the prescribed documents''
 and the ''prescribed fee.'' 
 The Government certainly intend to give as much information as possible in advance of the period when applications must be made, which is the subject that we are debating. That period is one month after Royal Assent. The point of the month is to ensure that forms and information are available to those who want to make an application. Those people then have a two-month window in which to ensure that their application is in place.

Hugo Swire: The Minister has been kind enough to tell the Committee that we will be able to view the forms shortly after Royal Assent. Can he give some indication of the range of the prescribed fee? We do not want it to be prohibitive to individuals applying for registration.

Alun Michael: I cannot, simply because, at this stage, I have not received advice or recommendations on that. We do not intend the fees to be onerous; we intend them to contribute towards the cost of the system and to be no heavier than that. As soon as I am able to give some indication, I shall be happy to do so.

Gregory Barker: If the Minister cannot give a figure, can he assure us that the fee will not be onerous—the word he used—to someone who is on the lowest agricultural wage?

Alun Michael: I repeat that we do not intend to have fees that obstruct the people making applications. The fees are intended to be reasonable. Once a level has been set and I have received advice, which will be based on the way in which the Government establish levels of fees for other purposes, I will be happy to share that information and debate it with members of the Committee. I will incur your wrath if I go further with this, Mrs. Roe, so I will point out again that we dealt with this territory in relation to clause 13, which we have already agreed.
 Members have pressed for the earliest possible indication of the level of fees and for a view of draft forms and that sort of thing. I am happy to undertake to make that information available at the earliest possible date and hopefully before the period intended for finalising all those things, which is the month after Royal Assent. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will know from previous periods of power—whatever the party—that the information is being provided fairly speedily after Royal Assent. We have made the time scale very clear well in advance of the final points of the legislative process. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that he wanted to tease out the way in which the regulations will be made and the speed with which decisions will be taken. I am happy to concur that my hopes are like his: I hope that decisions will be taken on cases well within the 12-month period that he suggests. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough commented on the way in which certainty will develop from a perhaps slightly uncertain initial period before applications start being dealt with. That will assist the process. Applicants who have sought registration within the transitional period may continue to hunt until the registrar or, if there is an appeal, the tribunal, rejects the application. That is a fair and reasonable way in which to approach the matter. 
 There is also the question of how the tribunal will deal with the initial rush of cases. Clearly, the cases from the two-month transitional window will have to be dealt with. That is the period when there are likely to be a lot of appeals as people test the process. 
 The Lord Chancellor's Department has extensive experience of running courts and tribunals. Every time that there is a new tribunal, it has the experience of implementing something new. Work is going on to ensure that the appropriate number of tribunal staff is available and that courtrooms are deployed to ensure that the tribunal can manage its work load efficiently and effectively. The restriction proposed by the amendment would cause problems. I assure my hon. Friend that the registrar and the tribunal will have the powers to deal expeditiously with appeals where applicants try to delay determination of the application to ensure that they can continue hunting inappropriately. 
 The commencement provisions in practice make it incumbent on the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the registrar's work as soon as Royal Assent has been given. The regulations will 
 provide for the efficient and speedy handling of applications. The Lord Chancellor's rules governing the tribunal must also be made promptly. They will follow the standard form of such rules for tribunals after consultation with the Council on Tribunals. As I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept, we are not entering new territory. Tribunals operate with professionalism, and standard rules and clear principles have developed strongly over recent years. It is some time since I had the pleasure of sitting in on a tribunal, but when, as a young reporter, I used to attend employment tribunals I was always impressed by the businesslike way in which they were undertaken. I know that the quality and efficiency of the process have increased considerably over the years. 
 The restriction proposed by the amendment could cause problems. Let us suppose that an application had not gone through the appeal process by the end of the 12 months. There would be no point in the amendment if that was not a possibility. That is where a point of principle would become a difficulty, as it would be in danger of preventing an activity that turned out to be permissible. That could be contrary to the European convention on human rights. I advise my hon. Friend, therefore, that it would not be wise to press his amendment. 
 However, that is to suggest that I would be relaxed about applications failing to be dealt with in the 12-month period. As my hon. Friend said earlier, I hope that they can be dealt with in that period; indeed, many of them will be dealt with more expeditiously than that. However, what we decide in legislation must be right in principle as well as in practice, and if even in one case something, for a good reason, drifted on and could be prevented, even though it did not contravene the Act or was allowed at the end of the final hearing, that would be wrong in principle. 
 I and the officials in my Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department will bend our endeavours to make the information that I promised earlier widely available to help people with the early preparation of applications and to ensure that the system works efficiently and effectively to make the period between the application window and the completion of the initial tranche of applications as short as possible. 
 One or two hon. Members asked what the target was. The target is the fair enforcement of the Bill. That depends on clarity. The legitimate target of the legislation and appropriate enforcement will not be those who undertake an activity in the interim period, when it is legitimate for them to do so as long as it is in accordance with the law, but those who, after the event, seek to breach the law. With those remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will agree not to press his amendment.

Rob Marris: What a lot of points there are to reply to. I think that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not reply to them all. I shall focus on the few points that I found interesting and/or persuasive. The first is that raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is not in his place. He kindly passed me a note saying that he would not be able to be here. He suggested that my amendment was the wrong way of
 tackling the issue and that it might be better to enforce on the registrar a limitation on how long he or she takes to deal with an application. That is a very valid suggestion.
 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who has slipped out, mentioned human rights implications and pointed out that animal welfare organisations could, in theory, deliberately delay an appeal procedure or put in appeals to take the case beyond the 12-month period. I confess that I had not considered that possibility and, although I do not think that it is likely, we must consider theoretical possibilities. It was an interesting point. 
 On the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister, it is not expeditious dealing in the registrar's actual hearing with which I am concerned. There is now a Council on Tribunals, and we have something like 84 tribunals in the United Kingdom. My concern is with the back office back-up and the sufficient resourcing of that. I am thinking not of the day of the hearing, but of the process of getting there and dealing with the paperwork. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that.

Alun Michael: If, in shorthand, I implied that it was only the point of decision that was important and needed to be expeditious, that was certainly not my intention. I accept that the administrative and preparation elements to which my hon. Friend refers need to be dealt with expeditiously. That is part of what we shall seek to put in place.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reiteration of his point.
 My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Human Rights Act and fairness. Another point that was especially useful to me, and may also have been to Opposition Members, was what he said about information and application forms being made available early. We have also had a mini-debate on the prescribed fee. We need to be able to get that paperwork going and undertake matters quickly, but I am quite happy to rely on my right hon. Friend's assurances that the back office work and resources will be put in so that applications can go through the system quickly and fairly, and we can have closure on an application, whether it is granted or denied. On that basis, I will not press the amendment.

Gregory Barker: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has shown the sense that he has often displayed before and decided not to press amendment No. 355.
 I am still concerned about amendment No. 45. The two-month window will be extremely short, given the profound implications for the livelihoods and liberties of many people in the countryside. We do not know when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. It is quite possible that it might do so in mid to late summer, in which case the two months could fall during July and August, when many people are away on holiday and many Government Departments, offices, universities and research establishments are not functioning properly. Hunts and individuals may be hampered in gaining access to the information that they require. That is the time when many hunting people can 
 actually get away, so when the Bill gets Royal Assent, a hunt might be unable to find one individual—these are often small organisations—who is vital to the evidence that they are assembling. Likewise, the Bill may receive Royal Assent in the late autumn, so the two months could run into the Christmas period. We all know that Britain closes down for three or four weeks over Christmas and well into the new year.

Russell Brown: It may or may not be of use to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Bill was introduced on 1 August, in the middle of a holiday period. Whether he likes the Bill or not, it has been introduced and implemented.

Gregory Barker: The holiday calendar is completely different in Scotland. For example, I understand that the schools go back earlier in August. Given that the hon. Gentleman is from Scotland, I do not intend to give way to him again. It was an error to give way to him in the first place.
 My point is simply that we do not know when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. Much depends on what happens in the other place, and there is a likelihood that a small window of two months could materially disappear if a bank holiday or holiday period falls during that time. The organisations upon which will fall the onus to fill out the applications will be unskilled at such activities and will not be able to draw on the services of large professional bodies. Many people will have to do things with which they are totally unfamiliar. They will not have filled in application forms like this one or collated great cases. It is downright unfair. 
 There has long been a suspicion that the system has been rigged against those who hunt, irrespective of the arguments or the force of evidence. This is yet another example of how not only the premise of the legislation is biased against people who hunt and people in the countryside but the actual process by which they will be able to advance their arguments and pass impossible tests is also rigged against them. I ask the Minister to consider the consequences of allowing a short time of only two months. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 17.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Gray: It seems curiously absurd that an Act that has the primary purpose of banning all kinds of human activities, particularly hunting, should be known as the Hunting Act 2003. Quite plainly, it is the No Hunting Act 2003, not the Hunting Act. It should not form part of the Bill.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 4 - Compensation

'Compensation shall be paid to all of those whose livelihoods will be affected by— 
 (a) the failure of an applicant to become a registered hunt, at a level and in a manner to be decided by the registrar; or 
 (b) the banning of a particular activity, at a level to be agreed in secondary legislation.'.—[Mr. Gray.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Gray: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 As you correctly say, Mrs. Roe, we have been down a long, winding, rocky and rather nasty road. We have banned deer hunting, hare coursing and terrier work. We are very close to banning foxhunting and we are told that, when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House, it will be banned, too. We have banned freedom. We have banned the livelihoods of people in the countryside. We have banned a whole variety of things. 
 We have narrowed the definitions of cruelty and utility to such a degree that it would be impossible for any sensible hunts to pass them. We have left it as the Bill that will allow the hunting of stoats, dormice, and possibly weasels, with dogs, but that is about it. It has been a pretty rough old road. Those debates are now past, the almighty strength of Labour Members has 
 driven through the Bill in its present ghastly format and the Minister has been overruled on at least two or three occasions. No doubt that will continue on the Floor of the House when the Bill gets back down there again. 
 All that is left to us now is to discuss not the principles behind the Bill or the principles behind the worst parts of it, but what we shall do about those people in the countryside who will be so badly affected by it. There is no doubt that a large number of people will suffer greatly as a result of what the Committee has done in the past two months. 
 I shall highlight four areas where people, their livelihoods and futures will be affected significantly. There has been an extensive debate over the years. Lord Burns became involved in how many jobs would be lost as a result of a ban on all hunting. All sorts of statistics are batted backwards and forwards. I have never taken the view that that was the strongest argument against banning hunting. All sorts of activities, if they were wicked, might be banned and jobs might be lost. 
 None the less, it is important that we should consider what should happen to those people. Lord Burns accepted that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time jobs would go. A further 70 per cent. of that figure may apply to part-time or part-year employees, bringing it to about 13,600 other people. Studies produced a figure of 16,000 people who would lose their livelihoods as a result of a ban. It is a significant number. 
 In my constituency of North Wiltshire, many people working in livery yards, as well as farriers and others will lose their jobs as a result of what has been decided in the past two months. It is only reasonable that we, as legislators, should demonstrate some compassion for people whose livelihoods will be affected. We should consider all sorts of people, even if we disagree with them and we legislate to do away with their jobs and houses. Many hunt servants live in tied cottages and will lose their houses as a result of the Bill. They will lose their outlook and their entire way of life. It will have a significant effect on many people. 
 Even if we believe, as Labour Members do, that it is reasonable to take such action, we should at least demonstrate some compassion when considering how to look after them in their plight. Lord Burns estimated that it will take up to 10 years to reabsorb the jobs that are lost in the rural economy. Without arguing about it, losses will need to be considered. 
 Secondly, in the event of restrictions on hunting with dogs, there will be significant depredations on livestock, particularly on game birds. I was amazed to hear the other day that about 10 million pheasants are shot in England each year. There is a huge likelihood that that industry will be damaged severely by the inability to use terriers to control predators, as was decided on Tuesday. There will be great depredations, which will affect farmers and gamekeepers. 
 Thirdly, farmers will suffer economically from the loss of the fallen stock collection service. 
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham) rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in Committee. He is either standing up because he wants to leave or to intervene.

Tony Banks: Of course I am. I am caught halfway up and halfway down. I am trying to catch the hon. Gentleman's attention.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the Committee stage. Each time that he gets up or sits down, we do not know why. If he wants to make a sensible intervention about the effect that the provisions will have on farmers, I shall be happy to hear it. However, he might like to let me know that in a proper manner.

Tony Banks: I shall make a sensible intervention when the hon. Gentleman starts to makes sensible speeches. I want to ask him a simple question. The slippage of accuracy that the hon. Gentleman makes from time to time has become legendary in Committee. Did he say that 10 million pheasants were killed each year? That is all that I wanted to know.

James Gray: There is no secret about that. It is a well-known fact. Yes, the number is of that order. The Government have gone to such lengths. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who apparently does not like the revelation about the 10 million birds, should be aware that the Labour party has made it plain that it supports shooting wholeheartedly. That is part of its manifesto. It goes out of its way to say that all the time. There is no point in hiding the statistics; they are readily available. That 10 million pheasants are shot each year in this country is not a surprising statistic. It is well known. I see no reason to cover it up. The Labour party says that that is sensible action to take.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I would rather not. We are dealing with compensation for the abolition of hunting. I see no reason to become involved in a further discussion about a particular aspect of it. None the less, shooting is an important industry in our countryside and the decision that we made on Tuesday to ban terrier work will have a significant effect on the shooting industry. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may think that that is a good idea. Jackie Ballard at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said recently that she is determined to see the end of shooting in this country. That is not the position of the Labour party; it is not the position of the Government. I see no reason therefore why the hon. Gentleman should take such glee in the fact that shooting is a significant industry in this country.
 I was pleased that the Minister visited the Country Land and Business Association's game fair last August and made a speech in favour of shooting game. I hope to see him there this year. Perhaps we may show him around some of the other sports that are represented at the game fair. I am glad that the Labour party is the greatest exponent of both shooting and fishing. We will hold it to that. The Bill will have a significant effect on the livelihoods of a large number of gamekeepers and others who depend on shooting for their living. It will have a great effect on farmers, who 
 are dependent on the fallen stock collection service provided by hunts. The Minister has said in response that on-farm burial, which will be outlawed a month or two from now, does not affect the decisions at all. 
 The Government will come up with a magical way of dealing with the 400,000 carcases that hunts dealt with last year. The Minister has not yet told us how he is going to do that. He tells us that some of the burners provided by hunts are out of date, but none the less from 1 April all farmers are going to have to find a way of getting rid of 400,000 carcases per annum. Hunts do it at the moment and if hunting is banned, farmers will have to pay a Government agency or someone else to do it. 
 There is no doubt about the first three damages that will be caused to the countryside. The fourth damage will be caused to the hunts, which will be looking for compensation for having to put down hounds that are no longer required. The Burns report came to this conclusion in paragraph 10.60: 
''In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service . . . and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds are to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels.''
 Leaving that question to one side, we understand that the principle generally applied when considering compensation is whether the individual concerned is deprived of a particular benefit rather than when some limitations are placed on its use. In that context, the Minister may well choose to pray in aid the regulatory impact assessment that he has published on the Bill. It is a very interesting document. It is rather incorrect in some respects and it takes no account of those activities that have been banned in the Committee—hare hunting and terrier work. 
 The regulatory impact assessment published by the Government is out of date, but it was pretty poor beforehand anyway. The RIA, having referred to Lord Burns as one of the guiding lights of the legislation, goes on to dismiss the employment estimates of the Burns report saying: 
''Economic evidence to the public hearings''—
 those at Portcullis house— 
''discounted the estimates in the Burns report . . . An economic expert stated that the number of jobs associated with hunting was a great deal smaller than that estimated by the Burns report.''
 The extensive research by Lord Burns and commissioned, prayed in aid and paid for by the Government is now dismissed in favour of an opinion that conveniently happens to suit the politically expedient needs of the Minister in his relations with the Treasury. 
 The Minister knows that there is an economic downside to the countryside in the banning of hunting. He has accepted that with regard to Exmoor. When he visited Exmoor he accepted that there was definitely an economic downside to the ban, and in a variety of other ways he has accepted that there will be problems in several areas. Let us not debate whether there is an economic downside to the ban, or the size of the economic impact. Let us agree that there will be a 
 significant impact and discuss what we are going to do about it. 
 I ask the Minister whether it is possible to ban something and cause that economic impact on up to 13,000 to 14,000 people without considering some form of compensation. New clause 4 calls on the Government to introduce compensation in two different ways. First, the registrar should set compensation with regard to activities affected as a result of the Bill. When someone loses the application to be registered, the registrar will decide what compensation should be issued. In the case of activities banned outright such as hare hunting, hare coursing and deer hunting, the level of compensation will be agreed in secondary legislation. This House will lay down precisely how much should be paid and that seems only reasonable. If that does not happen, there may be a risk of falling foul of the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998. That was considered before the 2001 Bill, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights said: 
''In view of the absence from the Bill of provisions for compensating those who lose income or land value as a result of losing the right to hunt, either generally or on their own land, and who suffer an interference with their freedom to enjoy their own land for hunting non-commercially, there is a risk of incompatibility with rights under ECHR Article 1 of Protocol No 1.''
 The Joint Committee went on to say that if compensation is not provided for the affected parties, they might have grounds for a claim before the European Court of Human Rights under article 1, protocol 1 of the convention. That protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and provides protection against deprivation of those possessions. In view of that finding in 2001, I tabled some written questions to ask the Minister whether he was certain that the Bill conformed with the Human Rights Act and his reply is interesting. I shall read it to the Committee carefully: 
''It is the Government's view that the requirements of the Hunting Bill would, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, amount to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than a deprivation of property, and that accordingly no compensation should be payable for any economic losses that may be suffered as a consequence of the Bill by the persons concerned.''—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 90W.]
 To spell that out again, the Minister says that because the Bill amounts to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than a deprivation of it, no compensation is payable. The implication is that if it were a deprivation rather than an interference, compensation might be payable. That is the logic of his reply.

Gregory Barker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but earlier he was greeted with some incredulity when he mentioned 10 million pheasants being shot each year. I have had the opportunity to check that with British Association for Shooting and Conservation and have obtained the definitive figure, which may interest the Committee and my hon. Friend in particular. Approximately 25 million pheasants are put down a year, of which approximately 50 per cent. are shot, giving a figure of about 12.5 million—
 somewhat higher than the figure that my hon. Friend suggested. I suppose that it largely depends on how many days my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex is involved in the sport in a particular season.

James Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification about the figure that I produced. I can find no reason why Opposition or Government Members should be ashamed of it. That is our point; it is not a wicked figure in any way. Government Members say that they are in favour of game shooting, but the only reason why they are giggling, snorting and making rude remarks is that, in reality, they are not in favour of it. They, along with their friend Jackie Ballard of the RSPCA, would very much like to abolish it if they could. That figure exposed the reality. On the one hand, they say that they are in favour of shooting, but the moment we talk about it, they start snorting and complaining about it.
 I remind the Committee that the point that the Minister made in his written reply was that if the Bill amounts to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property, no compensation should be paid, but if it amounts to a deprivation of the property, compensation is payable, broadly speaking. An interesting letter written by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has come to my attention. The letter is written on the Committee's paper, and is dated 21 January and addressed to the Minister. It says: 
''The Bill would, in the Committee's provisional view, be likely to deprive people of possessions of type (ii). Deprivation of possessions without compensation requires particularly strong justification under P1/1.''
 In other words, the Minister's written reply to me on 24 February saying that the Bill would amount only to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property, rather than a deprivation of it, is in direct contrast to what this Parliament's Committee has said. The Committee believes that the Bill will be likely to cause the deprivation of possessions, which requires compensation. The Minister's glib response indicates that he believes that it will cause only interference and that there should be no compensation. 
 Leaving that minute point of law on one side, it is important that a Committee that was set up to examine the matters has reached a conclusion that the Minister is gliding over easily—I look forward to hearing his response to that. It seems that there is a genuine and general point of justice because people will be deprived of their rights and livelihoods and it is only reasonable to compensate them appropriately. The Government acknowledged that principle when they considered a Bill to ban fur farming in England, which was passed only two or three years ago. Baroness Hayman, who was the Minister at the time, said that she thought that there was more to the banning of fur farming than what she perceived to be cruelty to animals because there was a moral question. She believed that compensation should be paid to fur farmers because there was a moral question. She did not say that the Government only wanted to look after mink better, but that it was morally unacceptable to have fur and mink farms in the United Kingdom so 
 they would be banned for moral reasons—not welfare reasons. She said that on Second Reading of that Bill on 19 July 2000. As we know, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 made proper compensation available to fur farmers who were put out of business as a result of it. 
 There are good recent precedents. The Human Rights Act 1998 refers to people being deprived of their possessions—the right to use their land, dogs and other equipment—in the same way as fur farmers were deprived. They will be deprived for moral and human activity reasons, not for animal welfare reasons, as we have often discussed. It is only right that we should give them proper compensation, even if not under international law or the 1998 Act. 
 The new clause would provide that the registrar could set a level of compensation for people whose application for registration fails. However, if the Committee decides to put people out of business by banning hare hunting, deer hunting and terrier work, it is reasonable that we in this place, through secondary legislation, should decide the amount of compensation. That is fair, reasonable and compassionate, given the circumstances. It has nothing to do with banning hunting or any of the issues that we have discussed for the past couple of months. It is a measure of compassion for those in the countryside whom we are hurting and I hope that Labour Members will understand the thrust of what I am saying.

Nicholas Soames: I rise to support the new clause as we reach the conclusion of what, for all those who have put their hearts and souls into defending the interests of hunting, has been a tragic few weeks in Committee. We can all see that the Bill will move towards a denouement on the Floor of the House which may regrettably lead to the banning of foxhunting by the House of Commons. The Minister has done terrible things to hunting in the Bill. At our previous sitting we discussed the banning of terrier work, which will lead to grave difficulties for keepers—we have been over that ground and I may return to it in a minute—and for the interests of some of our most endangered species.
 I want to put in context a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about reared pheasants and other reared game. The shooting economy in this country is an important part of the rural economy. As my hon. Friend said, it is extensive and substantial and as increasing havoc is wreaked on the rural communities of this country the farming industry is dying on its feet. I was born and grew up on a farm and I do not suppose that during my 55 years, or at least the 50 years that I have been conscious of, there has ever been a time when every aspect of the farming industry seemed to be almost flat on its back. The disaster that foot and mouth disease wreaked on the agricultural community and the astonishingly grotesque way in which it was handled by the Government, with the killing of 10 million farm animals, has left the farming community rocking on its heels and many farmers have found that having shoots on their land has 
 enabled them to create some diversification and some minor but hard-earned further income. 
 The real seriousness of what the Minister and his colleagues have done is directed not at birds that are reared for shooting, but at wild birds such as the grey partridge and grouse. I have been through that and will not go on about it, but I hope that the Committee understands that keepering a reared-bird shoot is a relatively simple exercise compared to keepering in the uplands where foxes are difficult to get hold of. Keepers will have to stay out night after night to get foxes that are wreaking havoc on ground-nesting game. The Committee may know that pheasants spend the night in trees, but ground-nesting game spend most of their lives on the ground, so they are very vulnerable to the predation of foxes. Banning the use of terriers will not put lowland keepers out of work because, until the Labour party bans the shooting of reared game, which it inevitably will, there will be reared birds. However, the small, viable populations of grey partridge—the wild English partridge—in the uplands and parts of East Anglia will be under tremendous pressure because of the banning of terrier work. That pressure will not be terminal, but it will be very serious. 
 It is beyond me how a Committee that came to ban hunting—many Labour Members voted for a totally different Bill from the one before us—glibly and out of the blue, bans beagling and terrier work and without any debate it bans hare coursing and deer hunting when there is not a single shred of evidence for doing so. Who will compensate stag hunts for the loss of their kennels? Who will compensate hare coursers? It is the most terrible thing that this House of Commons is doing without any knowledge or thought. 
 The Minister knows that some hunts provide a valuable pest control service, particularly in the wilder parts of the country, where a farmer will ring up and say ''Please come and get this fox, which has been killing my sheep''. The keepers will go out at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning and will lay the hounds on to the line of the fox. They are extremely efficient and effective at dealing with the problem. 
 I hope that the Minister is deeply worried about the collection of the fallen stock. The idea that hard-pressed farmers will be able to cope with that problem without the most grievous difficulty and considerable expense is ridiculous. The farmers could not do without the service provided by the Crawley and Horsham hounds, the hunt that I support in Sussex, which collects and takes away fallen stock, particularly at a time when the insane inequities of the livestock market mean that a number of cattle that are not wanted are put down on the farm and taken away. If the hunt does not take them away, who on earth will? The hunt takes them away for free, because it has good will and wishes to engender good will and to express its thanks and gratitude to the farmers and those who live in the countryside, who allow it to visit their land and to derive enormous pleasure from hunting across their ground, which the farmers in most cases—not all—
 willingly allow. For many farmers, the hunt will still collect the fallen stock, even if it does not hunt on their land, as a mark of respect, help and solidarity for an agricultural community in deep and abiding trouble. 
 I have expanded on all the unintended consequences and have bored the Committee with them for many hours. They will not lead to a diminution in the number of lowland keepers, who will always be able to deal with foxes. They will use snares. Any member of the Committee who has seen a fox snared will devoutly wish that he had not. Lowland keepers will use snares and will shoot foxes in great numbers, and they will survive. That is fine. However, in the uplands, where there are few keepers, their job depends on the fragile nature of the ecosystem that they secure and which would not exist without them. If they cannot use their terriers, inevitably they cannot get hold of the foxes, and we gradually get into the cycle of decline: grouse stocks will diminish, grey partridge stocks, such as they are, will diminish and keepers will lose their jobs and go. It is a most wicked state of affairs. 
 The Burns report estimated that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting, although the number of people involved in hunting is significantly higher. About 700 of those jobs result from direct employment by the hunts; another 1,500 to 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs, perhaps involving some 2,500 to 5,000 people, result from direct employment on hunting-related activities by those engaged in hunting. The remaining jobs in a wide variety of businesses depend indirectly on hunting. Of those, many will be in urban rather than rural areas. It is not something that the Minister can simply brush aside. 
 I want to conclude by saying something about hunt kennels. One or two Labour Members have visited a hunt kennels. I know that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has, I am sure that the Minister has, and some hon. Ladies have done so too. I am glad that they have. I do not know which hunts they visited, but one will always find the same thing in a hunt kennels. [Hon. Members: ''Dogs.''] One will certainly find hounds, not dogs. As I am sure the Committee knows, a hound is an infinitely superior animal to a dog. One will find hounds in quantity and number. One will also generally find immaculately kept premises and extremely clean kennels, many of them in historic, remarkable and beautifully laid-out buildings. I have visited the Belvoir hunt kennels, one of the most magnificent buildings that I have ever seen. It is beautifully laid out and designed, a wonderful and remarkable place. If hunting is banned, such kennels will fall into disuse. 
 The Committee must understand that it is destroying not only something that people love and that is part of their fibre and being and whole life—I know that some Members do not care or understand about that and that it does not mean anything to them, so we have to put that aside—but a wonderful, unique, remarkable tradition in English life. It has been a fount and origin of some of our greatest writing, art and other things that we have discussed at length, which are being set at nought and as of no account. I 
 suppose that an historical treasure trove is all that we will have to remember foxhunting by. 
 Parents who used to hunt, and who hoped that their children would hunt, will see their children's and grandchildren's lives immensely the poorer. Tens of thousands of children hunt today, with the Pony Club, with hunts and at children's meets. I went to a children's meet the other day. One can see the real pleasure, knowledge, gain and character building brought to those children when they take part in hunting and riding—a sport that is not risk-free, but in which one chances one's neck and one's arm—with a smile on their faces. All that is going to go. A great and abiding tradition in English life will be swept away for ever. 
 At the same time, hunts have tremendous organisations that pay for the upkeep of kennels. They are valuable places, some of them with hundreds of years of invested capital—of money, time, effort and sweat. What will happen to them? What will the hunts do? Many are in areas of outstanding natural beauty, so there will be no chance of converting them to a software writers' counselling project or doing a barn conversion job. Kennels cannot be converted. Many of them will become listed buildings. Who will compensate the hunts for their single most important physical asset being taken away? 
 I realise that this is a difficult argument for the Government to swallow. My Government were responsible for the miners, who, quite rightly, received substantial compensation. This wicked, wholly unnecessary, pointless and facile piece of legislation will result in good, honourable, decent men and women who love their jobs and their lives and have no security and no stability being thrown out of their tied cottages. I declare an interest in that I am a donor to the hunt servant's benevolent fund, which has many calls on it to give time and effort to support former hunt staff. There is no way in which the hunts will be able to keep them on. The hunts are run and their funds raised through an intricate network of hunt supporters' clubs, foot followers, subscribers and evenings that are the essence of community life in some places. In some of the more remote parts of Britain, there is no social life other than that provided by the hunt: in the deeper parts of the west country, where stag hunting is an integral part of community life, there is very little social life other than that which the hunts organise and generate. 
 The Minister has terribly let down all the people who put their trust in him. I know what he is going to say: he is going to say that people came to Portcullis house and were wholly in favour of the hearings; I was not, but against my better judgment I was persuaded that we should take our full part in them. Lots of evidence was produced by the Countryside Alliance and many others, such as the hare coursers, the gamekeepers and the beaglers. All of them were present for the Minister to listen to and to heed, but there is not a single shred of evidence that he paid a blind bit of attention to any of them. 
 I have paid handsome tribute to the Minister: people keep asking me why I bother to do so, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and he did 
 organise the hearings, and he did hold them, and he did listen—but he did not do anything. As we have sat through the passage of this Bill, we have watched the dismantling, piece by piece, of everything that we tried to present to the Portcullis house hearings, as if it all stood for nought. As far as I am aware, not a single thing that the Minister heard at those hearings has been incorporated in the legislation. They were like the Judas sheep—the sheep that goes on to the cart first to lead the others on board so that they can be taken to the slaughter. 
 We are discussing something that we love. Many of the people that we represent cannot believe that Parliament could do such a dreadful thing as to destroy foxhunting, beagling, coursing and stag hunting on the basis of so little knowledge and so much ignorance and prejudice. Some Committee members have not said anything; they have just sat here without uttering a word to try to defend the awfulness that they are wreaking on the supporters of the hunt and those who participate in it. I make this forecast to the Committee: they will be back. 
 Do not let anyone believe that the Government will not go after shooting, because they will. They have not listened to a word. The National Gamekeepers Organisation made strenuous representations to the Minister, but not a word has been taken on board. The Minister is doing a terrible thing for which his name will live in infamy forever in the British countryside—I mean that. Given that, I hope that he will be generous with regard to compensation and generous to those whose lives and livelihoods he is going to destroy.

Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has only one speech, although it is a good one. He gives us this sort of speech from time to time: it is more suited to Second Reading, but we understand how passionately he feels about the subject, and it is an open secret that I have a great deal of time for him. There is something about him that makes me smile when I see him: he just brightens up my life, which means that I must be a very sad person.
 However, the hon. Gentleman paints a grotesque picture of the Bill, of us and of the rural economy. I listened closely to what he was saying as I always do because I am fascinated by him—although not in an unnatural way, I hasten to add in view of what one has been reading in The Sun recently. He paints a picture of a rural community that is largely comprised of a legion of hollow-eyed, shoeless, emaciated, ragged peasants who shuffle from one disgusting hovel to another. It does not bear saying to him, although he should listen to it carefully, that the rural economy and the agricultural industry of this country receive more central Government funding than all the other industries put together. That is a fact. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the amazing crisis brought about by foot and mouth disease. I criticised the Government savagely about that in the House. I thought that the methods that were used owed far more to voodoo than to science. Subsequent events have proved that analysis to be correct. 
 Sometimes one does not need to be an expert; one just needs some commonsense and some gut feeling about such things. I am glad to say that on that occasion commonsense and the gut feeling of many hon. Members were proven to be correct. Perhaps we will learn something from that. 
 Some 300,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since 1997.

Adrian Flook: Six hundred thousand.

Tony Banks: I do not pluck figures out of the air. It is not 600,000. I will stick with 300,000 and wait to see whether that is correct. I am trying to remember the statistics. There are still 1 million more jobs in the economy. [Hon. Members: ''A million and a half.''] The point that I am trying to make is that of course one is concerned about any loss of jobs. It matters to the individual who has lost their job. However, let us not get an idea and rush away with the belief that somehow the economy, even the rural economy, is static. We are talking about infinitesimal numbers of jobs in comparison with those lost in manufacturing industry and those created in the economy as a whole.

James Gray: Give way?

Tony Banks: I will not. I am addressing the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.

James Gray: Through the Chair.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is as pedantic as ever. He never lets us down. I have never met someone so pedantic, tedious and humourless. I cannot wait for the Committee to finish so that I do not have to look at him again.
 I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that there is something in the amendment that must be addressed. If we are to pass laws that deprive people of their livelihoods, perhaps we should be prepared to consider sensible compensation. I am seeking to put the issue into some sort of context and I see no reason why we should not take that view. I am prepared to take a compassionate view, particularly when animal welfare interests are concerned. If those could be shown to us on Report, I think that a sensible amendment ought to be tabled so that we could give it due consideration. I am mindful of the fact that I have strong beliefs about the matter and that I want many things to be banned. Having said that, I do not want people to lose their jobs if it can be shown that they have no chance of getting alternative employment.

Adrian Flook: What price would the hon. Gentleman put on the head of a hound that is perhaps three years old?

Tony Banks: That is precisely what I will not do. That is why the amendment is not helpful—it does not put a price on anything. I do not want us to do that. This is the way to it: we need to think about it, consider the situation and table a considered amendment that can be proven to be worthy of acceptance by the House. There is something in the
 amendment, despite the fact that it was moved by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I am still sympathetic in principle. Even when the hon. Gentleman has a good case he manages to lose it through the kind of speeches that he makes to this Committee.

Candy Atherton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister talked about fallen stock in his response? That is a genuine issue.

Tony Banks: We all know that our right hon. Friend will consider the matter carefully. Where genuine problems and hardships are created by this type of legislation a decent Government should necessarily take them into account when it is being drafted and when it is agreed as it goes through the House. I am sure that the Minister will respond.
 My good friend the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex talks about the traditions and the shape of the countryside and says that we are losing something for posterity, but what did posterity ever do for us? When one looks at the shape of the countryside, one realises how much has been completely changed by intensive farming methods—the nitrates that have been poured on to the land that have leached into the river, the species that have disappeared because of farming methods, the colour and shape of the fields and the hedgerows that have been eliminated. 
 The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the Bill represents a destruction of the traditional base of the countryside, but the countryside looks nothing like it looked in the 1950s and 1960s, when I spent a considerable amount of time there doing things about which I do not wish to elaborate.

Nicholas Soames: I assure the hon. Gentleman that many of the hedgerows that he put to such good use are still there. I have a high regard for him, as he knows, and I am grateful for the tone of his comments but much depends on where he looks. The countryside used for hunting has, in many ways, been improved and enhanced over the years. I agree that there has been terrible destruction to some parts of our farming land—one thinks of the terrible prairie farming in East Anglia, which has been a disaster. Everyone deeply regrets the vandalism, but farmers were doing only what they thought was right at the time.
 If the hon. Gentleman visits the shires—Sussex or almost any of the rural counties of England outside East Anglia—he will see countryside much of which was laid out and is still maintained for hunting. Some 97 of the 184 hunts in this country manage 38,900 of the 700,000 hectares of broadleaf woodland in Great Britain.

Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and we must do all that we can to ensure that those benefits are maintained, but we must find an alternative method. I will not repeat arguments that I made in other places about the role of the farming community in looking after the landscape for us as a whole, but the countryside belongs to all of us, not only to those lucky enough to live there.
 The hon. Gentleman asked whether kennels could become listed buildings. When I was the Minister responsible for fine arts and tramways—an interesting combination of sport and listed buildings—I listed a pigeon cree in Northumberland. They are genuinely, architecturally fascinating and valuable buildings that have to be maintained. There is a way of looking after such buildings through the various agencies. 
 There is something in the new clause and although I cannot support it this afternoon, the issue could receive support on Report, especially if we emphasise the animal welfare aspect. I would certainly be prepared to support such a provision.

Peter Luff: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman because there is a note of agreement in the Committee, which is a welcome surprise. We must recognise that the people who will be affected by our failure to agree the new clause are often poor and underprivileged, not the rich people of mythology. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire had to leave the Committee to attend a sitting of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on behalf of his party. I know that he wanted to emphasise the serious adverse economic impact that the Bill will have on mid-Wales now that it has been re-drafted.
 What the hon. Member for West Ham just said was extremely welcome, and I agree with him. As he said, the 300,000 or 600,000 jobs that were lost in manufacturing were lost not by an Act of Parliament but by other processes. The Committee is knowingly passing legislation that will lead to the loss of jobs and economic utility. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his characteristically thoughtful remarks. 
 It is worth remembering that the Government paid generous compensation to the farming industry after the decimation of foot and mouth disease. Therefore, DEFRA, which replaced the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a precedent to follow. The Burns report is clear on the matter. Paragraph 3.75 deals with the impact on farming of a ban on hunting: 
''The negative impacts of a ban would be particularly resented because they would be viewed as unnecessary by many of those affected, and as an avoidable addition to other problems facing the farming community.''
 Burns makes an explicit case for compensation in paragraph 10.60: 
''In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels.''
 Burns made those remarks before the Bill existed and they are very relevant to the Bill as originally drafted, before it came to this Committee. It has become much more draconian in Committee and the case for compensation has grown all the time. The test on utility has been toughened significantly, notably by the addition of the words ''pest control''. There has been an absolute ban on hare hunting, for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. The evidential basis of the Bill was overthrown by that vote and by the spectacular ban—again, which has no evidential basis—on Tuesday on all terrier work. That is important because in paragraph 10.17 Burns 
 discusses the implications and workings of the human rights legislation and states: 
''An important consideration would be whether legislators could point to unnecessary suffering or some other reference point beyond mere disapproval, to reflect the general interest (or, to the extent necessary, the protection of morals and pressing social need). A relevant issue would be the form of the Bill: one which required proof of unnecessary suffering, or some similar test, would be less open to argument than one which banned hunting per se.''
 I have not quoted the whole paragraph, because I wish to save time and hear what the Minister has to say before the Committee finishes at 5 o'clock. 
 I suspect that that paragraph was uppermost in the Minister's mind when he developed the Bill that he presented to the House of Commons. However, the Bill has changed significantly in Committee and is now much more based merely on disapproval. The tests have been strengthened beyond recognition, but they are applied to many fewer activities. Hounding and terrier work, for example, are simply banned. 
 The banning of terrier work means that lowland hunts are much more likely to be banned. The Committee said that hunts should hunt for pest control purposes only and then denied them the means to engage in pest control—an act of rank hypocrisy. The banning of lowland hunting is much more likely, because it is much less able to meet the tests of utility by its own action, which is deplorable. Hunts such as the Croome and West Warwickshire in my constituency are likely to close. The North Cotswold hunt, which is also in my constituency, has a fine listed building for its kennels. I invite the hon. Member for West Ham to come and see it. It is a beautiful building in the centre of Broadway high street. Those kennels are now much more likely to close. 
 The Worcestershire hunt's kennels, which are in my constituency, have incinerators that meet modern standards. That hunt could have provided a fallen stock service to the local farming community, but will now not be able to do so. The incinerator will become valueless to them. The case for compensation has grown enormously as the Bill has gone through the Committee. 
 The Minister will not accept new clause 4—we are not holding our breath. However, the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham should weigh heavily on the right hon. Gentleman as he considers the Report stage. Whatever the final form of the Bill—we all think that there will be a complete ban on hunting, without the utility or least suffering tests, by the time the Bill leaves the House of Commons—the case for compensation is extremely strong. 
 The golden thread that the Minister talked about when all of this began has unravelled completely in the Committee, sometimes with the Minister's active assistance, for example, when he voted for a ban on terrier work. It has been unravelled and chopped into bits by the Minister and the Bill is now about disapproval. Burns said that that would make it much less likely to pass a test of the application of the convention on human rights. If the Minister wants the Bill to get on the statute book and survive the test 
 of the courts, it is in his own interest to be generous with compensation. 
 I have one last point to make before I sit down for the last time in what has been a long and emotionally demanding Committee for those of us who care about animal welfare rather than bigotry and who genuinely have animal welfare and human liberty at the centre of our considerations. The regulatory impact assessment, published by the Minister and signed off by him on 2 December is now a completely irrelevant document. It refers to the Bill as originally drafted. I will not quote it for want of time and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough wants to speak. I ask the Minister to reflect on paragraphs 3.1, 5.1 and 10.1 of the regulatory impact assessment, which are now nonsense—a nullity. 
 Even if the Minister cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will promise a new regulatory impact assessment so that the true costs of the Bill, which have become enormous in Committee and more than we ever expected, can be properly understood by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, before—God help us—it becomes law.

Edward Garnier: I had not wanted to speak having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex because I did not want to detract from the gravamen of what he said or to disturb the effect of his words, but they were powerful. It is easy to mock, tease or pooh-pooh the way in which someone looks or speaks and I fear that many of those who have observed my hon. Friend over the years have made a great mistake in treating him with some disrespect. This afternoon, if I may say so without embarrassing him, he spoke for many of the people that I represent, who cannot speak for themselves in the Committee. I hope that the Government will pay close attention to what he said because he spoke from his heart, his head and his own experience.
 Although I am five years younger than he, I share many of the values, experiences and concerns of which he spoke. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham for recognising that despite the differences of opinion on the subject of hunting, there are some things that can draw us together. One of the subjects that should draw us together is legitimate compensation for those whose lives are being not just disturbed by the consequences of the Bill, but interfered with. In some cases, they will lose their livelihoods, their homes, their whole way of life and their understanding of what life is about. 
 I am not talking about compensation in the current sense. I cannot place a monetary figure on what I am talking about. In the few moments available to me, I am hoping to use the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire as an illustration of my points. My hon. Friend has also suffered the slings and arrows of personal abuse from others. I think that is unfair, unnecessary and it detracts from the value of the Committee's work. 
 Underlying what he said is a cry for fairness, and acceptance that when a Parliament does things to others, it should not do so without accepting that the people to whom those things are done are entitled to not just a hearing, but some form of compensation for the adverse consequences visited on them. I am not talking about the price of everything, but the value of those people's lives and what they stand for. 
 I accept, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, that the farming economy is a nationalised activity. The farming world is hugely subsidised by the taxpayer, and one has to accept it is hugely subsidised by the urban taxpayer because there are more urban taxpayers than rural ones. More to the point, we are in receipt of vast sums of European Union money in support of our agricultural industry. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is not for us to discuss today. What is relevant to the new clause is that by passing the Bill into law, we will add to the nationalisation of our rural economy by turning a huge number of people who are employed into dependants on the state. I am not sure whether that is a sensible consequence to look forward to. 
 I shall bring the debate to my area. I hope that I am not accused of showing off or being ostentatious because that is not my intention, but I accept that no part of life, our economy or our environment in the United Kingdom can be set in aspic. I accept that my constituency, despite the fact that it is the capital of foxhunting and has been for hundreds of years, has no right to expect to become a museum in which activities of which the public disapprove can continue simply because they have continued for many years and we must have a living example of them. 
 I know from my family's experience that the rural economy has changed and I say that as one of the latest generations of a family that has lived on its land since the conquest and that has never had to buy any land during that great period. Throughout that period of 1,000 years, the way in which the countryside in that part of the world has changed has been obvious. If one rolls the clock back, as the hon. Member for West Ham tried to do a moment ago, I accept that the farming scene of 2003 is different from that of the past.

Tony Banks: I have listened and hopefully learned. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he lives on his lands, which have been there since the conquest. I suppose that all lands have existed since the conquest, but his family acquired its lands in the conquest. [Interruption.] If that is the case, was compensation paid?

Edward Garnier: I accept the way in which the land has been kept has changed over the years. I am not arguing that if necessary changes have to be made to our farms and to our rural economy they should not be introduced. I invite the Minister to consider that in my constituency and particularly in the village in which I live, many of the people who work have jobs connected directly or indirectly with either farming or hunting. In the event that the Bill becomes law, their jobs will be abolished—one may say, ''Bad luck''—and they will migrate to other parts of the country where jobs are available.
 My point, which I agree that I am making clumsily, is that we are in danger of turning the rural parts of our country into not only nationalised museums and subsidised bits of the economy, but dormitories. Many of the houses in rural villages, which in the past were filled with people who work on farms, in stables, as blacksmiths or in hunting, will be inhabited by people who simply buy them for the view and commute into neighbouring towns and cities. The whole rural area will become a dormitory that is quiet throughout the day, that revives when people come home from work in their cars and that goes to sleep again at 7.30 the following morning. The place will become denuded of adults throughout the day. People may say that that does not matter and that life moves on. About 150 years ago, Disraeli wrote of two nations; we are about to see two nations, in the worst sense, reappear as an indirect consequence of the Bill. 
 Yesterday evening, I addressed the Grafton hunt farmers' dinner, at which there were 250 people. The gap between their understanding of what is important and Labour Members' understanding is vast and growing bigger. The gap will lead to the breakdown of a sense of nationhood in this country, which is way beyond Labour Members' understanding. I feel that I am making a plea in the dark, which is gaining no purchase on the intellects or emotions of those who disagree with me. I fear that the gap between us and them is now so wide as to be unbridgeable. 
 I do not want my part of the world to become an empty quarter or to become still more nationalised and I do not want the people of this country to become disaffected by the democratic process. All those things will surely come to pass if legislation such as this, which has one origin but which has transmogrified into something quite different, are passed into law. This could not happen in Spain, France, Italy or any other civilised country in Europe, yet the Government, the Committee and the House of Commons are content to see it happen in this country. 
 If there is to be any fairness in the Bill, we must consider what was envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. Proper compensation must be paid to those whose lives are about to be ruined and it should be given willingly and not grudgingly. I am sure that even the hon. Member for West Ham would agree with that.

Alun Michael: This has been an interesting debate. Compensation has entered into only a small part of it, although it has been referred to in the context of much wider comments made by a variety of Committee members. I want to focus on compensation, but I must deal with the context in which many of the contributions have been made.
 The hon. Members for North Wiltshire, for Mid-Sussex and for Mid-Worcestershire and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made a number of generalised criticisms. I reject their perception of the Bill. When it was published, I said that I would welcome constructive debate and improvements that would help to develop legislation that would stand the test of time. I am pleased that the animal welfare provisions have been strengthened and that the content has been clarified as a result of the debate in 
 Committee. I stress that the Bill is based on principles that all sides, including the pro-hunting organisations, accepted as right during the consultation process that led to its drafting and publication. 
 The principles of utility—the things that need to be undertaken to control pests—and the concepts of cruelty or least suffering provide the basis for the two tests must be satisfied if hunting is to take place. Hunting is banned unless the two tests are satisfied. The Bill's purpose is to eradicate all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs, which is the expressed aim of those concerned with animal welfare. The Countryside Alliance has also acknowledged that if it is cruel, we should not be doing it. [Interruption.] Of course, I will give way to Opposition Members, but a number of them have spoken widely and generally about the social, economic and financial impact of the Bill on the countryside and I wish, briefly but coherently, to rebut those charges, as well as to deal with compensation.

Peter Luff: I do not believe that countryside interests have ever accepted the principles as set out in the Bill. The Middle Way Group reluctantly acquiesced in them as an alternative way forward, less good than our proposals. The idea implied in the Minister's statement, that the Bill's principles were in some sense endorsed by the Middle Way Group and countryside interests, is not right.

Alun Michael: I am afraid that I have to reject what the hon. Gentleman says. If people use the words, ''If it is cruel, we shouldn't be doing it'' but have failed to unpack the term ''cruelty'' and to examine the issues of necessity and least suffering, they cannot blame me for taking them seriously and at face value, and assuming that they know the meaning of the English language.

James Gray: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made so well is that the Countryside Alliance and other such groups accepted the liberal definition of cruelty and utility laid out in the Minister's letter of April, but that we do not accept either the illiberal definitions of cruelty and utility laid down in the Bill or the Minister's unilateral, arrogant decision to ban stag hunting, hare coursing, hare hunting and terrier work. That is his decision and has nothing to do with the tests in the Bill, which we accept. We most emphatically do not accept that decision.

Alun Michael: I am not sure whether the word ''we'', as used by the hon. Gentleman, refers to hunting interests, the Countryside Alliance or the Conservative party. [Hon. Members: ''All three'']. Ah, it is all three—an identity. That is revealing. The hon. Gentleman cannot on the one hand ask for principles to be applied to hunting and on the other reject, in the most cavalier manner, the meaning of words and the application of logic.
 I take the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex back to hare coursing. Hare coursing, according to the definition of organisations that undertake it, involves not the control of pests or any other utility, but the testing and comparing of the skills and agility of dogs. That cannot, by any use of the English language, be seen as satisfying a utility test. 
 Of course it is cruel. The opportunity to make that case was there for those who came to the Portcullis house hearings and submitted evidence. They had their opportunity, and they failed. That is the fact. Opposition Members have revealed the arrogance with which they—

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. We have 13 minutes left of this Committee stage. I acknowledge that the debate has gone freely, but would it not be helpful if the Minister addressed new clause 4?

Marion Roe: I have heard the point of order. Let us get on with the debate. It is very important, and we have only a few moments left.

Alun Michael: It is fascinating that Members who took up much time in this debate do not want to hear the answer to it. They are not willing to be challenged logically on the total nonsense that they have been talking. They wanted all sorts of evidence to be brought forward and for that then to be ignored. They wanted cruelty to be ignored. They do not like it when the meaning of words is applied strictly, where logic is used and where evidence is examined objectively. They do not like it when that is what we have done—applied logic to the available evidence. At its introduction, the Bill was described as tough but fair. That remains true, although it is even more robust as the result of the amendments accepted.
 I reject some of the comments made during the debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex talked about rural economies and communities. The Government have paid much attention to the needs of rural economies and communities, especially since publication of the rural White Paper and the establishment of DEFRA, the Department in which I serve. 
 I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough make some serious points on the dangers of to countryside areas becoming dormitories. He is right about the trends, but they were not introduced by the Government. They are social and economic trends, and serious ones that we need to tackle. That is one reason why, as a result of my responsibilities and my commitment to the national parks, I have been keen to bring together, for instance, the national parks authorities and the regional development agencies, because I do not want our national parks to become landlords' museums. I want them to be sustainable. We want sustainable development that respects the countryside, the community and the economy. Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in any of those important issues. 
 A number of hon. Members raised relevant points about hunting. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) asked me to refer specifically to fallen stock. I shall do so only briefly, because it was referred to in two debates. As a result, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to all members of the Committee setting out the impact on fallen stock of the European Union's animal by-products regulations. Even without the Bill, hunts would have to change the way in which they undertake 
 their activities. In some circumstances they provide a free service; in others they no longer do so. They will have to change, adapt and develop. They will have the option of going out of business or developing that aspect of the business within the context of the new regulations. I refer members of the Committee to my hon. Friend's letter. 
 I want to refer to compensation, because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who took some time to reach that issue in his contribution—

James Gray: It was all I talked about.

Alun Michael: Hansard will show that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman failed to be clear about who should be compensated or how compensation should be assessed. Do we compensate simply those directly employed by the hunts? Burns could not provide an exact number for those people, which suggests some ambiguity. If hunts fail to be registered for hunting, some aspects of their business may be able to continue, although with a reduced turnover. Does an owner, or, for that matter, the employees, of such a business qualify for compensation? What would happen in the case of a hunt that, once a ban had come into force or because it failed to register, decided to convert itself into a drag hunt? Why should an employee of that hunt, whose job description and conditions of service may remain essentially unchanged, be eligible for compensation? Therefore, the amendment is flawed on the ground of practicality alone. Beyond that, it appears that the amount of money that the registrar could award would be open-ended. The Government, as guardian of the public purse, could not support it as a matter of principle.
 I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham does, that some people will be directly affected by the Bill. Certainly those who are made redundant have certain statutory entitlements: they are entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative employment. There are opportunities for training. I make the point again to Opposition Members that the Portcullis house evidence was that the contribution of hunting to the rural economy is small.

Russell Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister knows that the only hunt that has been disbanded north of the border is in my constituency. Last week, I tried to check the number of people who have presented themselves as unemployed as a direct or indirect result of that hunt disbanding. I stand to be corrected, but no one had presented themselves as unemployed.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
 The Foster Bill and the Deadline 2000 Bill did not provide for the payment of compensation. I understand the concerns expressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, but I cannot give a commitment on this issue. The key point is that the Bill deals with cruelty in hunting. There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel. That is at the heart of what the Bill seeks to tackle. 
 The difficulty of finding other jobs is exaggerated. The rural economy has expanded faster than the urban economy in recent years. As one Opposition Member said, I referred to specific micro-economic problems in relation to Exmoor, and I undertook to work with organisations and people in that area to address those concerns. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to the letter sent to me concerning the Bill by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 21 January. That letter explained that the Committee had formed the provisional opinion that the Bill is compatible with the relevant human rights obligations. The Chairman asked for an explanation of one aspect of the Bill: its effect on contracts already entered into for future hunting. I provided that explanation in a detailed reply to the Committee on 31 January, which the Committee will no doubt publish in its next report. The arguments are detailed, but I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that there should be a revised regulatory impact assessment. I would point to that fact that when any Bill reaches the House of Lords, a revised RIA is automatically prepared. Without changing the processes in any way, I can assure him that that will be the case. 
 The Government consider that controlling hunting with dogs is a proportionate means of preventing cruelty to wild mammals. That is the purpose of the Bill. In the Government's view, any interference with property that arises as a result of the Bill's provisions is justifiable on the basis that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of the community and the rights of the individual. 
 The control of hunting has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights as a legitimate aim that may justify an interference with property rights. The Scottish courts have ruled similarly in relation to Scottish hunting legislation. It is the case that there will be employees of individual hunts whose livelihood will be affected. It is right that where possible, they should be assisted in finding new employment, and their employers will have responsibility in that regard. That does not lead to the conclusion that compensation should be paid in the way suggested in the new clause. I urge the Committee not to support it.

James Gray: The Minister's woefully inadequate reply to a passionate and gripping debate is typical of his response to all the debates that we have had throughout the Committee. Whether we are talking about expanding the categories of banning—as he has done, wrecking his own Bill by his own vote—whether we are talking about narrowing the cruelty and utility tests so that no hunt can possibly pass them, or whether we are talking about compensating the poor people in the countryside who will be put out of a job as a result of his decisions, the Minister chooses not to address the human rights issues or the real difficulties that will be faced by people in the countryside when the Bill becomes law. He chooses instead to reiterate his thin arguments.
 In his bogus, biased and bigoted arguments, he exposes his prejudice against the countryside and his lack of knowledge of the countryside. His ignorance is matched only by his apathy. His performance throughout the Committee stage has been despicable in our view and from the countryside's standpoint, but it has been despicable in his own terms too. He was given the task of putting together some sort of Bill that would stand the test of time, as he put it, and find widespread acceptance. It was to be some sort of middle way licensing approach. 
 However, as we come out of Committee, he has a Bill that bans almost everything, that does it in a most cack-handed, bureaucratic and useless sort of way, and that fails to compensate the people whose lives, expectations and outlook will be destroyed as a result of his actions. He does not care. He does not understand. He does not know anything. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said in his memorable speech, the countryside will remember that. The Minister's name will be engraved on the heart of the countryside. His name will be engraved on the families and the children that he has cast aside in his arrogant unconcern for the future of the people affected by his disgraceful little Bill. He is a disgraceful little man, and he brings black shame on himself. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Alun Michael: I am aware that the constraints of the programme motion reduce your flexibility to hear hon. Members at this point, Mrs. Roe, but I am sure that it is possible, even following the controversy during the last debate, to end on a note of agreement by thanking you and Mr. Stevenson for the way in which you have diligently undertaken your duties in a sometimes fractious Committee. It has been the longest Committee stage of any hunting Bill that has been considered by the House.
 I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will also want to thank the Clerk, the Hansard writers, the police, the officials and others who have helped and advised the Committee in a variety of ways, and members of the public on both 
 sides of the argument who care about the outcome and attended our sittings to hear our debates. 
 I also thank Committee members on both sides for their contributions, although some have pleased me more than others. Nevertheless, they contributed on issues that are passionately divisive in the Committee and made a significant contribution to the Committee's work in assisting the House in the difficult process of enabling Parliament to work towards a conclusion on the matter of hunting with dogs.

James Gray: May I add my warm words of thanks to you, Mrs. Roe, and to Mr. Stevenson? You have both handled what has sometimes been a difficult Committee with great equanimity under duress and with huge aplomb. You have both allowed proper discussion of difficult matters and sometimes allowed us to deviate from the straight and narrow with only the slightest pulling back from time to time. You have both handled the Committee extremely well.
 May I also add my thanks to the Clerk, Mr. Sandall, who has handled the Bill superbly with great expertise. He has done brilliantly well. 
 I mumble and swallow my words, and the Hansard staff have done a superb job. The fact that one of the Hansard writers is an old Jock, like me, may have helped him to understand what I was talking about.

Edward Garnier: A young Jock.

James Gray: He is a young Jock, unlike me.
 Others have also done a superb job—the police, the attendants and so on. 
 The Committee has been well served by advisers outside this place and on both sides of the argument. I greatly enjoyed my recent visit to the sanctuary of the League Against Cruel Sports where I learned a lot 
 about the league. Perhaps I could pay particular tribute to the National Farmers Unions, the Country Land and Business Association and, above all, the Countryside Alliance whose work in advising us has been superb, the British Deer Society, the National Gamekeepers' Organisation, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Terriermen's Association and others. A huge number of people have worked very hard to produce telling amendments and speaking notes to support them. We are grateful to all those organisations. 
 Whatever the outcome of the Committee stage, I hope that it will be realised by the countryside in general that we have had the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full. We are not happy with the Government's explanations of it, but the support that we have received from outside groups have made that debate possible. We are very grateful to them.

Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is it possible to force a vote on the thanks to the Clerk?

Nicholas Soames: May I add, superfluously, my thanks to those of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire? In particular, may I say, Mrs. Roe, that you and Mr. Stevenson have ridden your ponies extremely well on a very long rein? It has been important that this Committee, given the contentiousness of what we have discussed and the tremendous implications that will flow from the Bill, has been pretty good natured. Much of that has been because of the way in which the Committee was chaired.

Marion Roe: I thank the Committee for its kind comments and will ensure that Mr. Stevenson is made aware of them.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at five minutes past Five o'clock.